This guy is an Incident Recorder.

He walks around London (I saw him in Gower Street) with a small webcam Velcroed on his chest doing absolutely nothing except.... Recording.

Apart from the half-zen half-kafka debate to explore what an "Incident" is, I find this guy remarkable. I asked him what on earth an Incident Recorder was. He had that slightly impudent, self-important sneer that not-real-coppers seem to have, but he still told me that he gets paid to walk around, waiting for an Incident that he can Record.

Am I the only one who thinks this is odd? Didn't it used to be sufficient for someone to be an eye-witness of an incident? Is the video footage he is shooting even admissable in any kind of court? And is this symmetrical surveillance? Would this plasticop have carried on Recording his Incidents if his camera had happened to light upon, say... a policeman beating a newspaper seller to the floor with his truncheon? Would the video have made it back to the station, or might there have been a technical glitch?

The next question... given the new law banning the filming of coppers, would it have been classified an Incident worthy of Recording if he had seen me taking his photo? I took mine covertly,  of course... iPhone-ninja-style...